Printable View
I picked up the Tamron 17-50 2.8 (non VC) and I have to say I have been very disappointed. This lens was touted as being incredibly sharp and excellent in low light situations. I have found this lens to be the complete opposite. I'm using this on my T3i and was looking for an upgrade over the kit lens. No dice...Anyone else know what I'm talking about?
The Tamron may need an autofocus microadjustment to work well with your specific camera. Unfortunately, the T3i doesn't have that feature.
You might try borrowing a friend's 50D, 70D or 7D to see if that's the case. But really, it would simply be an academic exercise. The lens would need to be returned regardless of whether or not it was an AFMA issue or a lens performance issue because of the body you're using it with.
Thanks for the info Sean!
You may be able to see for yourself if you have an AFMA issue by setting the aperture to f/2.8 and running it through the AFMA tests. The DYI part at the bottom. When testing a new lens, I often set up something similar, but even simpler. My countertops have a pattern to them and I put a high contrast box with good lighting on them. I then shoot 5-10 shots with camera parallel to the box and the center AF point at the same point of the box (tripod mounted would help) and I see if the focal plane is in front or behind where it should be. I also sometimes see the focal plane bouncing around.
...Maybe the lens is just overrated….?
i have that same lens and i find it quite good. noticably sharper than the 18-135 stm lens i had before.
To help you decide on returning for a replacement or a refund, you should check what results other real-world people are getting. I do this check before buying any lenses.
Google for "flickr pool (name of lens)", or https://www.flickr.com/groups/37412600@N00/ for your Tamron 17-50mm.
Go through the images, looking for non-resized ones with EXIF intact, and wide apertures. If one looks blurry, verify it isn't because they were shooting at a ridiculously low shutter speed, or from noise reduction because they used ISO 6400... rule out the obvious. I find photos of animals good to judge sharpness, because of their fur.
I read lots of reviews and looked at other folks images. With mine
I don't seem to get what I was expecting...
That was shot with the Tamron on AF
Hard to judge at this size, but part does seem to be in focus, but it looks like this shot is setup such that any non-macro lens would have issues. You are presumably, very close to MFD (minimum focus distance), which is 11" from sensor. Non-Macro lenses are NOT optimized for this. I would expect softness.
I'm not sure what settings you were shooting at, but assuming 50mm, f/2.8, with the flower near the minimum focus distance, your DOF is tiny... DOFMaster says it's about 0.1", roughly 0.05" in front and back will be in focus. Typically DOF is calculated for what would make a good 8x10 print at 100dpi, but we're all much pickier than that. Viewing zoomed in on a monitor, you will see blur at much less than 0.1". This is probably the worst-case shooting situation you could create, for any lens.
If you want to be shooting flowers, and other small things, I'd recommend you return this lens and get a macro lens. If this isn't what you want to shoot, then I suggest re-testing the lens on a subject that's more typical of what you want to shoot.
thanks Dave. I didn't buy this lens for macro stuff. I was shooting this flower as a test comparing auto focus and manual. I took some shots of an office with furniture and pictures on the wall and those shots were soft as well.
I have decided to keep the lens for a few weeks and really test it out…thanks for the input…greatly appreciated...
I should have read more of the discussion before replying, but I do remember using that lens. Actually Sean talked me into keeping it when I was busy complaining about the focus noise and it searching for focus when there wasn't enough contrast in the subject. Because I was using it for landscape and interior rooms shots, the problems I had with it were meaningless. Rocks and chairs are rarely spooked by noise making manual focus that much easier. When I did use auto focus, I had to make sure there was something there for the camera to lock on to. I was usually happy with the results barring stupidity on my end. For what I wanted in a lens at that price range, it was ideal. If through manual focusing you can't get anything sharp in the frame, it is prolly a bad copy and needs fixed. Using auto focus mode, if it just misses the focus point, that means you need the lens calibrated to your camera. I hope this incident doesn't sway you from buying Tamron /Sigma lens. When buying something new, you expect it to work and it should, but we're asking a lot of technology /small parts... And multiple shipping trucks with humans throwing them around in between. It's a small miracle most lens work. Hope your luck improves with this lens and future purchases.
I have made arrangements to return this lens. I will absolutely be sticking with Canon only from here on…thanks everyone for your feedback…greatly appreciated.
I was going to respond as I am a big advocate for this lens. I have used it for 6 years and after sending it to tamron to adjust it, it is one of the sharpest lenses in my bag. Sorry it didn't work out for you.
Jayson. Your work is amazing. Could you possibly specify a few of the images that were shot with the Tamron?